Inclusion criteria

In order to be included on the Evidence Hub, all content must:

• relate to people's financial wellbeing (including capability and behaviour)
• make a positive contribution to the Evidence Hub, given what is on there already
• be based on research
• provide a full description of the research methods used, as well as where, when, and who did the research
• describe the context in which the research was conducted, including any significant cultural, social, or political factors that are likely to have influenced the results
• describe the research participants and how the sample was chosen
• evidence all conclusions and justify any recommendations
• acknowledge uncertainty and limitations.

Evidence types

Once accepted, each study is classified under one of three categories, with a standard checklist for each.

Evaluation Studies

These assess specific programmes or interventions aiming to improve financial wellbeing. Evaluation evidence is classified using the following checklist:

• Programme Theory: Information about programme design and rationale, such as a Theory of Change or Logic Model.
• Measured Outcomes: Evidence about changes in Financial Wellbeing outcomes, measured for programme participants.
• Causality: Evidence that the Financial Wellbeing outcomes measured were caused by the programme.
• Process Evaluation: Evidence about programme implementation, feasibility, or piloting - explaining how, why or for who the programme works.
• Value for Money: Evidence about relative costs and benefits of the programme.

Insight studies

These explore financial wellbeing more broadly, instead of research tied to a specific programme. They may use original or existing data.

• Quantitative: Uses numerical data (such as e.g., surveys) to analyse trends, behaviours, or relationships. It is often used to look at changes over time and can identify relationships between characteristics like people's attitudes and behaviours.
• Qualitative: Qualitative research is more exploratory, and uses a range of methods like interviews, focus groups and observation to gain a deeper understanding about specific issues - such as people's experiences, behaviours and attitudes.

Review studies

These draw from existing research on a topic to provide oversight of a topic or draw new conclusions.

• Literature review: Non-systematic overviews drawing broad conclusions from selected studies, including literature reviews/scoping reviews.
• Systematic review: Structured, replicable reviews covering all relevant studies, may include meta-analysis, rapid evidence reviews, and full systematic reviews.